Open Collections

UBC Library and Archives

Research Data Management (RDM) Needs of Science and Engineering Researchers : A View from Canada Sewerin, Cristina; Barsky, Eugene; Dearborn, Dylanne; Henshilwood, Angela; Hwang, Christina; Keys, Sandra; Mitchell, Marjorie; Spence, Michelle; Szigeti, Kathy; Zaraiskaya, Tatiana 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


494-Sewerin__C_et_al_Research_data_management.pdf [ 833.68kB ]
JSON: 494-1.0304648.json
JSON-LD: 494-1.0304648-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 494-1.0304648-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 494-1.0304648-rdf.json
Turtle: 494-1.0304648-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 494-1.0304648-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 494-1.0304648-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

SURVEY INSTRUMENTSBarsky, E., Mitchell, M., Buhler, J. (2016). UBC Research Data Management Survey. Retrieved from V1 [Version].Hwang, C. (2016). Research Data Management Faculty Survey, University of Alberta. Retrieved from, C., Dearborn, D., Henshilwood, A., Spence, M., & Zahradnik, T. (2015). Research Data Management Faculty & Postdoctoral Survey, University of Toronto. Retrieved from, K. (2016). University of Waterloo Survey Instrument Dec. 2015. Retrieved from V2 [Version].Zaraiskaya, T., Cooper, A., Moon, J., Murphy, S., Saleh, N. (2016). Queen's University RDM Survey. Retrieved from Data Services [Distributor] V1 [Version].Research Data Management (RDM) Needs of Science and Engineering Researchers: A View from CanadaCristina Sewerin1, Eugene Barsky2, Dylanne Dearborn1, Angela Henshilwood1, Christina Hwang3, Sandra Keys4, Marjorie Mitchell2, Michelle Spence1, Kathy Szigeti4, Tatiana Zaraiskaya51 University of Toronto, 2 University of British Columbia, 3 University of Alberta, 4 University of Waterloo, 5 Queen’s UniversityFUTURE STEPS• Looking to expand the collaborative effort and rollout of the science and engineering survey to other interested Canadian institutions; investigating translation to French • There is a social sciences and humanities survey in development based off of these questions, which will give a broader disciplinary understanding of research practices by discipline at Canadian institutions, as well as allow comparisons to the science and engineering results  • A medicine and health sciences survey may be developed nextFACTORS DRIVING RESEARCH STUDY• Looming changes in Canadian funding requirements around data sharing, data preservation and the submission of data management plans are prompting institutions across Canada to better understand Research Data Management (RDM) practices and needs • Understanding researcher behaviour and workflow is instrumental to developing reflective service• Various solutions at several levels (national, regional, institutional) will need to be implemented to better serve researchersCORE QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS• What are some of the characteristics of data produced by researchers at these institutions?• How do researchers in different disciplines manage their data? Are there differences that can be observed between disciplines?• What attitudes can be observed toward RDM support and services?SURVEY METHODS• 19-23 question online survey run between April and December 2015• University of Toronto created instrument, adapted by other institutions  • Topics surveyed included: working with research data, data sharing, funding mandates and research data management services, and demographic and general questions• Five institutions have run the survey and analyzed data to date; four more scheduled to run survey• Using the same core survey allows for comparison between institutions and disciplines, while remaining specific to individual needs and provide insight for local questions• All ranks of science and engineering faculty and postdoctoral fellows; Queen’s University also surveyed science and engineering graduate studentsINSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN STUDYThis poster reports results from five Canadian universities which have run the survey: University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Waterloo, University of Alberta, and Queen’s University.Additional Canadian institutions to survey their researchers later this year, including: University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Dalhousie University, University of Ottawa, and McGill University. Outreach is planned to determine interest from other Canadian institutions.DEMOGRAPHICS780 responses from the five universities were included: Queen’s (400); U of A (128); U of T (95); UBC (94); and Waterloo (63).The approximate total populations surveyed at each institution were: Queen’s (1393; 594 faculty, 799 graduate students); U of A (825); U of T (1116); UBC (950); and Waterloo (786).All institutions included only completed survey responses with the exception of Queen’s, which included both the complete and incomplete responses in their data.HIGHLIGHTED RESULTSA majority of respondents showed a level of interest in all research data services queried. Highest responses received:• Communication about funding and journal requirements• Assistance preparing data management plans• Institutional repository for dataA majority of respondents indicated that they are currently depositing research data in external data repositories.A majority did not believe, or were unsure if there is sufficient documentation and description for another person outside their lab to understand and use their research data:  may require guidance or assistance in documenting and describing their data.Of 358 respondents who identified at least one of the three major federal funding agencies (CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC) as a funding source, 82.9% said they would need or want assistance with drafting a data management plan as part of a grant application.RESEARCHER FUNDING SOURCES Most noted funding sources researchers (n=379) used in the last five years or plan to use in the next five years: • 86.3% Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) grant • 33.2% Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) grant• 25.3% IndustryScan this code to link to the survey questionsPERCEIVED BENEFITS OF SHARINGResponses to the question “What benefits do you see to sharing your research data?” (n=590) in relation to total responses, by disciplineREASONS FOR NOT SHARINGResponses to the question “What, if any, are the reasons you would not be willing to share your research data and associated methods/algorithms?” (n=368) in relation to total responses, by disciplineINTEREST IN SERVICESA level of interest shown in services, as broken down by discipline. Note that ‘not applicable’ and ‘not interested’ answers are not includedDRAFTING A DATA MANAGEMENT PLANResponses to question “If you were asked to draft a data management plan as part of a grant application, which of the following statements would best describe your situation?” (n=551)DISCIPLINES SURVEYEDENGINEERINGCivil/mineral/mining/environmental engineering      Biological/chemical/materials/mechanical Engineering      Electrical/computer engineering SCIENCEPhysics/astronomy       Biology        Earth science      Computer science       Chemistry       MathematicsOTHEROther       Unspecified WORKING WITH RESEARCH DATAResponses to the question “How many research projects did you lead in the past year, for example, as a Principal Investigator or project lead?” (n=643) in relation to responses to the question “How much data storage do you estimate you use in an average research project?” (n=643)


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items